From the Front Lines

Peter Gregerson’s Wise and Painful Departure from the Watchtower

2008-08-07T09:19:00.002-05:00

Family and business man, Peter Gregerson of Gadsden, Alabama has a story to tell. It is a story of spirituality, deception, confusion, and wisdom. It is a story shared by many others who have caught a glimpse of a freeing pathway from the deceiving clutches of the Watchtower and have walked that lonely road out. It is a story that needs to be experienced by those who consider leaving the organization, those who have already exited, and those who desire to help others escape.[1]

A Faithful Witness

Peter Gregerson, born in 1928, was the oldest child of an “anointed witness.” His father, Harvey Gregerson, was one of the 144,000 of the heavenly class, according to Jehovah’s Witness theology. This was a prestigious position, and one that made young Peter all the more proud to be part of God’s exclusive organization.[2]

While living in Clinton, Iowa, as a new fifth grade student in Franklin School, Peter refused to salute the flag with the rest of his class, claiming that his only allegiance was to Jehovah. The teacher was so dismayed at such disrespect and lack of patriotism that she placed Peter in front of the class every day and attempted to force him to salute the flag, littering him with scorn. At the age of eighty, he reflects back: “That was the longest year of my life.”

In his mind, this treatment was just part of being a good Witness. His father knew about this kind of treatment. He was something of a local “legend” who was regularly persecuted by drunken mobs, one of which desired to lynch him. His mother, brothers, and sisters were all faithful witnesses as well. Alienation from non-Witnesses is part of what it means to commit oneself to the Watchtower. In fact, in their minds, it is this exclusivity and imagined superiority that sets Jehovah’s Witnesses apart from others – the wicked of the world.

As Peter aged, he became more involved in the work of the religion, becoming a pioneer (or full time domestic missionary). He logged thousands of hours selling the message of the Watchtower, and was even called upon in his youth to visit various congregations and help them with diverse problems including discipline issues. He was a natural leader, extremely zealous for the faith. But his zeal led to some financial difficulties for his family. Though he was working as a janitor and had a little income, he also spent so many hours publishing the teachings of Jehovah that it became difficult to feed his family.

In a humorous personal story he tells how he would often buy canned vegetables that were missing labels, because the price would be reduced. When the label fell off, stores would write the name of the product and the price on the outside of the can (for example: GREEN BEANS $.10). Once he bought a can that had been labeled this way and brought it home to Janet, his wife, and their two children. He was both surprised and embarrassed when he opened the can to realize it contained dog food instead of green beans! Such sacrifices are to be expected in the lives of committed believers.

Despite his early experience with poverty, Gregerson’s story is one of rags to riches. He is a clever and inventive business man who, over a period of years, saw success in the grocery industry. He moved his family to Anniston, Alabama in 1968 and soon opened his own store, Gregerson’s Warehouse Groceries, which grew into a popular local chain of stores in northern Alabama for the next thirty years; until Wal-Mart dropped the guillotine on many locally owned and operated businesses.

Throughout these years, Gregerson remained faithful to the Watchtower. He served as an Overseer of two congregations in Gadsden and as a Circuit Assembly Overseer, a position that earned him great influence over the congregations in the region. This influence was reinforced by the fact that he taught the elders school as well. He also developed many personal relationships with the central powers in Brooklyn, partly because of his great devotion to the religion, and partly because he could obtain food in large quantities for the various conventions. The Watchtower often wrote to him in great appreciation for his services, and asked his advice concerning matters of the church. His family was considered a model of a family raised in “The Truth.”[3]

However, the 1970’s brought a crisis of conscience not only to Peter Gregerson, but many others caught in the web of Watchtower organization and doctrine. For Gregerson it was a decade-long sunrise that would lead to a radical change in his life.

Crisis of Conscience

According to Watchtower teaching, frequently published in their magazines, Armageddon was to come in the fall of 1975.[4] Gregerson openly confessed that this doctrine was highly upsetting to him, since they taught that all non-Witnesses would be killed in this cataclysmic event. As an elder in charge of teaching Watchtower doctrine at local Kingdom Hall congregations, his conscience would not allow him to convey this dooming message. He often conveyed to the congregations that he was not up to attending, in order to avoid teaching engagements. His dilemma: how is it that a loving God, who had come to seek and save the lost not condemn the world, was going to destroy 99.9% of all people, just because they had not picked up a Watchtower magazine and become a Witness?[5]

One of his closest friends had set his pension up to drain over the several months leading up to “Armageddon.” Many other Jehovah’s Witnesses did the same. However, when the end did not come, a great number of people saw the fraudulent nature of the organization and left, including Gregerson’s friend. If there was a time when the entire organization might have crumbled, it was in those days just after the failed prophecy of 1975.

Since Gregerson was considered by the Watchtower as one of the “gifts in men,” he was called to Brooklyn in the fall of 1976, along with other key leaders from around the country, to meet with Milton Henschel, then Chairman of the Governing Body.[6] Because of the disaster of the unfulfilled prophecy, the leadership was open to speaking honestly, and listening to suggestions for the direction of the organization (however no discussion of 1975 was allowed).

During these meetings, Peter thought deeply about some of the injustices that were occurring around the country in various Kingdom Halls. Elders were essentially treating members with great contempt and spite, rather than with love and gentleness. These stories, and the sheer number of them, broke his heart, and he began to ask the troubling question: “Why did the ‘Faithful Slave,’ under the direction of God’s Holy Spirit allow this?”[7]

His faith in the Watchtower was further shaken by his thoughts, which often kept him awake at night, that if he were pressed on the issue of blood transfusions, he could not prove that the Watchtower was the faithful slave and must be obeyed unconditionally.[8] Though he never had to face this unthinkable reality, he was often afraid of the possibility. His son David was known as a fast driver, and Peter would often imagine him in an auto accident in which his young son (Peter’s grandson) was injured and needed a blood transfusion or he would die. What would he do? What would he tell his son David to do? These nightmare scenarios made Gregerson confess, “I realized that in my fifty years I had never really done my homework.”[9]

During the late 1970’s, Gregerson’s soul was in turmoil over these doubts. His reservations were growing, but he also knew that leaving the Watchtower, after nearly fifty years of loyalty, would not be easy. His wife and her family, his children, many of the managers at his grocery stores, and most of his closest friends were all Witnesses. And in their eyes, to leave the Watchtower is to turn one’s back on Jehovah himself, and to be essentially given a death sentence. If a person is disfellowshipped, other members are no longer allowed to speak with that “wicked” person.

During the late 1970’s Gregerson developed a relationship with reclusive Witness scholar, and member of the Governing Board since 1971, Raymond Franz, whose uncle Frederick Franz was highly influential in the development of the teachings and practices of the religion.[10] Raymond had come to a crisis in his own faith that reached an intense level in late 1979. In March 1980, he took a leave of absence from Brooklyn and lived on Gregerson’s property in Gadsden, doing yard work as a means of earning a living. Eventually, after a great deal of unfair treatment and deep injustice from the leadership in Brooklyn, Franz “resigned” his position from the Governing Body.

A year later, Peter’s conscience won the day; he decided to resign from the organization to which he had devoted his entire life. In March 1981, he wrote his letter of resignation and called Bethel headquarters to inform them of his decision. David Olsen, an overseer in the Service Department spoke with Gregerson and expressed his grief that Peter was leaving, stating, “We love you and hope you will be back soon. If you do, there will be many blessings in your future.” But Gregerson’s decision was final, this was a permanent farewell.

Raymond Franz was also disfellowshipped after he was “caught” eating a meal with Gregerson, who was, by that time, considered by the organization to be a wicked man. As a result of his experiences, Franz authored a book documenting those difficult days; a book that opened the door of the secretive and destructive practices of the Watchtower leadership, and that was “banned even before it was written.”[11] Many do not realize, however, that this book, aptly titled Crisis of Conscience, was written at the strong suggestions of Gregerson, who even paid Franz a weekly salary in order to enable him to write the book. This book, now in its fourth edition and translated into 12 languages, has become a classic volume and has been used to shake many Jehovah’s Witnesses out of the dark stupor cast over them by the Watchtower.[12]

A High Price to Pay

The months after leaving the organization were painful for Gregerson, especially since his was a high profile exit. The February 22, 1982 edition of Time magazine ran an article written by Richard N. Ostling called “Witness Under Prosecution,” featuring Raymond Franz’s story and mentioning Gregerson.[13] Also, Larry King, who was hosting a national radio show at the time, conversed with Gregerson on the air about his departure. In Peter’s mind this was unfortunate because the interview happened at a time when he was extremely angry at the Watchtower and he made some regrettable comments in the heat of the moment, which his sister heard on the broadcast and later held against him. Leaving the Watchtower brings with it an extremely high price to pay in the social realm.[14]

Janet Gregerson’s mother had once conveyed that she would rather see her daughter’s family spread out across the road in a horrible automobile accident than to see them ever abandon the teachings of the Watchtower.[15] In spite of this disappointment, Janet followed her husband out of the tight grasp of a false prophet. Relationships for the Gregerson’s, however, began snapping like twigs.

Peter’s close friend, mentioned above, who had left the Watchtower after the failed prophecy of 1975, had since returned to the organization. He did so because his son had committed suicide and the cult informed him that the only way he would ever see his son again was to rejoin God’s organization. He did, but with one condition – he wanted the right to speak to his old friend Peter one last time. This happened one day when they both happened to be in the same medical office. “Peter,” he said, “I love you. Good-bye. I will never speak to you again.”

Likewise, Gregerson’s sister, the same one who had heard the King broadcast, came to Alabama attempting to persuade her brother to return to Jehovah. Peter treated her with great kindness, but maintained his stance against the Watchtower. In spite of their many years of closeness, she also vowed never to speak to him again, and in the more than twenty-five years since she made it, she has kept her vow. These types of heartbreaking moments are all too familiar for those who leave the Watchtower.

On a more positive note, Gregerson speaks about his seven children with a sparkle in his eye. All seven of them came out of the organization. This was of great importance to Peter, since he, and his wife Janet would have been counted as dead to them. The fact that all seven exited was truly miraculous, because many of his children were in leadership positions in the organization, and some had married other Jehovah’s Witnesses and so were deeply entrenched in the faith. Nowadays, they gather on special occasions (especially Christmas) with all the children, and with the twenty-two grandchildren, praising God that not one of them was left within the deceptions of the Watchtower.

In spite of the painful cost of leaving, Gregerson believes that the price is worth paying. The “Faithful Servant” is a false organization that deceives in order to control millions of people. The pain of leaving is a pain that they cause. It is difficult and confusing to depart, but the end result is much better. Living under the domineering reign of a false organization is utterly devastating.

A Unique Voice

In the years since his departure, Gregerson has lent his wisdom and experience to helping others who are trapped in Watchtower mire. In his labor, he speaks from a distinctive perspective. This is so, first of all, because of his long association with the organization. He was not a fly-by-night member or a short-term guest just checking things out. Rather he spent fifty years of his life as a faithful and zealous worker. In all of his years of membership and service, until his resignation, he was never disciplined for any action, but rather was appreciated and promoted.

Secondly, Gregerson brings to the table the expertise of an insider. He was not an average Kingdom Hall attendee, but rather rubbed elbows with people on the highest rungs of leadership. Besides his association with Raymond Franz, he was also close friends with the longtime editor of Awake magazine, Colin Quackenbush. Why is this important? Many Jehovah’s Witnesses are unaware of the inner working of their organization, but Gregerson knows it well. He has seen the deception and cover-up in a close and personal way. And because of his long and faithful love for the organization, he would have no motivation to lie about the things he saw.

Thirdly, Gregerson speaks with a unique voice because he is a careful researcher. As an elder, he was considered for years to be the teaching authority in several congregations. His departure from the Watchtower came about partially because his study of the Bible did not mesh in many places with official Jehovah’s Witness positions, especially when it came to the issue of Armageddon. After he left the organization, he was instrumental in gathering together a group of mostly former Jehovah’s Witnesses to study the Scriptures. Biblical Research and Commentary International (www.brci.org) was born from initial meetings at his lake house. This group continues to hold annual conferences and help many people out of the Watchtower.

His careful research can be seen in a speech prepared for the BRCI 2008 convention, in which he asks and answers the question, “Is the Watchtower God’s Only Organization?” This speech is not only personal, but also detailed and meticulous; showing that if the Watchtower is not the “Faithful Slave” of Matthew 24:45-47, then the entire organization falls. He explains how the Watchtower takes these three verses out of context and essentially extends ownership over all things, including people, on the basis of their belief that they are the “Faithful Slave.” He then smashes their argument by showing that the book which was supposed to have established them as the “Faithful Slave” in 1918-1919, The Finished Mystery, is nothing more than a collection of silly sayings and false prophecies. This is why Gregerson says with tongue-in-cheek, “The Watchtower doesn’t even make this remarkable book available for purchase.”[16]

Because of his careful research and analysis of the Bible and Watchtower literature, Gregerson has concluded that the organization is a false prophet. He would urge Jehovah’s Witnesses to utilize their God-given reasoning ability to see this fact. He offers this advice: “When a false prophet has been exposed and condemned by God – the Bible says, ‘Be not afraid.’”[17]

One final reason for Gregerson’s unique voice is his loving and gentle spirit. In spite of some of his more heated comments early after his departure, he is not angry with the people in the Watchtower, but still considers many of them to be dear friends. He does not convey ill feeling but rather longs for people to be free from the noose of false religion. One of the first shadows of doubt that flooded over him concerning the truthfulness of the Watchtower came in the wake of the way members were often treated harshly by elders. Gregerson cares about people and reads in the Bible about a God who cares about people, and could not make sense of such harsh treatment. This type of gentleness and love is exactly what people need who leave and are then alienated by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Conclusion

On Sunday, July 27, on his eightieth birthday, Peter Gregerson was baptized at the First Baptist Church of Gadsden, twenty-seven years after his departure from the Watchtower. The bumpy road he has traveled, and the story he tells, is one to be deeply considered. His crisis of conscience was not unique, but his voice is. It is the voice of one who was formerly faithful to a false prophet, whose careful research (along with the grace of God) led him from the clutch of deception. May his gentle and experienced voice be used of God as a beacon of hope to any who are stuck in the swamp of Watchtower control, and are looking for the way out.

Online resources for those considering following Peter Gregerson:

Biblical Research and Commentary International
www.brci.org
Mr. Gregerson can be contacted via e-mail through this website.

Witnesses for Jesus, Inc
www.4jehovah.org
This site contains many other stories of those who have left the Watchtower.

Free Minds – Watchers of the Watchtower World
www.freeminds.org
This site contains a number of articles revealing details of Watchtower deception through the years.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses Reformation Movement
www.jwreform.org
This site was constructed by current and former Witnesses who are seeking to change the structure of the organization from the inside. They believe that the Watchtower is still valid as God’s organization, even though its reputation has been shattered by the many false prophecies and scandals littering its history. Though its stance is misguided (if the organization is a false prophet then it is most certainly invalid) it is included in this list to show that concerns about the validity of the Watchtower come from both without and within the organization.

[1] A list of some helpful resources is given at the end of this article.
[2] Much of the personal information in this article was given in a personal interview with Mr. Gregerson, conducted July 25, 2008 in Birmingham, Alabama.
[3] Peter V. Gregerson, “Is the Watchtower God’s Only Organization?” This is a speech presented at the 2008 BRCI conference in which Mr. Gregerson quotes snippets from several letters written to him from the Brooklyn headquarters. One of these stated, “The society is looking for stories for publication involving brothers who successfully raised families in The Truth. You’ve successfully raised a fine family of seven children. Your wife has been an excellent example also,” 5.
[4] For example, in Awake (October 8, 1968), 14: “How can it be determined when 6,000 years of human history will end? According to reliable Bible chronology, Adam and Eve were created in 4026 B.C.E. This would leave only seven more years from the autumn of 1968 to complete 6,000 full years of human history. That seven-year period will evidently finish in the autumn of the year 1975.”
[5] John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
[6] Henschel would later be named president, a position he held from 1992-2000.
[7] Gregerson, 6.
[8] The belief that receiving a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood, and therefore a transgression of Leviticus 17:10, was introduced into Watchtower doctrine in 1945.
[9] Ibid., 7.
[10] Frederick Franz served as president of the organization from 1977-1992, and is often considered one of its chief theologians. He was an active participant in their New World Translation first published in 1950.
[11] David Reed, “Crisis of Conscience,” http://www.freeminds.org/sales/most_burned.htm [accessed July 26, 2008].
[12] Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience, (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2002). Mr. Gregerson’s story is told briefly on pages 295-296. Plus, several letters photocopied in the appendix, 415-427, from Mr. Franz to the Watchtower authorities, discuss the eating incident with Mr. Gregerson that led to Mr. Franz being disfellowshipped. For reader’s comments, see the book’s Amazon page: http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Conscience-Raymond-Franz/dp/0914675044.
[13] Richard N. Ostling, “Witness Under Prosecution,” Time, February 22, 1982, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922767,00.html [accessed July 31, 2008].
[14] Franz, Crisis of Conscience, 1-7.
[15] Her reasoning was theological, since the Watchtower teaches that if a Witness dies before Armageddon, there is a possibility of resurrection.
[16] Gregerson, 21.
[17] Ibid., 32.

Copyright 2008

A Practical (and Evangelistic) Presuppositionalism

2007-12-15T16:13:00.000-06:00

The question of how to do apologetics is very important and should not be neglected. I have recently read interactions between a Christian and atheist where the Christian focused mostly on external evidences for the existence of God while the atheist simply dismissed the notions out of hand. The talk basically went like this:

ATHEIST: Where did the creator come from?
CHRISTIAN: Most common answer: He was always there.

CHRISTIAN: Where did the universe come from?
ATHEIST: It could have always been there. (We don't know what happened before the big bang). Hypothesizing a creator leads to more questions than it answers.

The cosmological argument was the tool being used, which says that every contingent thing has a cause, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes, therefore there must be a first cause. Furthermore, the best explanation for this first cause is God.

The atheists simply asked, Why postulate God? Why not take the simpler course of action and leave the question unanswerable?

The reason we cannot leave the question unanswerable is because of the demands that Jesus Christ has placed on humanity in the name of God the Father. This is the leverage needed to make answering the first cause argument an important issue.

Jesus commands us to be born again - John 3:5-6 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Jesus commands us to believe in the Son of God - John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. John 6:28-29 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

Jesus commands us to obey the righteous commandments of God - Matthew 5:19-20 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

If we begin apologetics with the fact that Jesus Christ provides a perfect solution for the dilemma of mankind, that he said and proved that he is God, and that the document containing this information, the Bible, has a divine and trustworthy character about it, then natural theology takes on a whole new function. It's function is not so much to prove the existence of God as it is to confirm what Christ has told us about God.

If we attempt to begin apologetics on the so-called "neutral" ground of evidence, even though arguments for the existence of God can be powerful stand alone arguments, nonetheless the atheist can claim agnosticism concerning them (rightly or wrongly). He may not feel compelled to search for an answer or so quick to see that God is the best explanation for the first cause, for apparent design in the universe, and for universal moral values.

But if we begin on the grounds that God has commanded us to surrender our lives to Him and trust in Christ for salvation and has offered a completely coherent worldview based on the axiom that he does all things for his own glory (John 17:4-10), then we can show how the world around us, indeed our very lives, conforms to that worldview.

It seems clear that the problem of man is moral, not intellectual. Thus we must preach the depravity of man and salvation through Christ first of all. These are the facts of reality even if those facts are denied and avoided by lost individuals. And then other apologetic arguments (focused on external evidences) serve to show the reasonableness of trusting Christ over other alternative authorities (naturalistic scientists, Eastern gurus, personal intuitions, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, etc.) since the worldview taught by Christ matches what we observe to be true in reality.

A good approach to an atheist might be to begin by asking them if they are good or bad. Of course, we are operating on the biblical assumption that the law is written on their hearts and their conscious is bearing witness to them concerning their moral condition (Romans 2:15).

Then the Christian might ask the atheist on what objective basis do they believe that they are either good or bad (assuming they give an answer). If they say the basis is a man-made system (say universal utilitarianism), then of course it is not objective, for if naturalism is true, nobody is compelled to follow the system of another person. If they say they have no objective moral basis (a consistent naturalist should say this), then ask them why they intuitively feel either good or bad. A universal moral standard can be denied verbally, but it is simply unlivable practically.

At this point, the Christian could share the fact that we are finite creatures, limited in the amount of knowledge we can obtain about reality, thus we must trust some authority. Naturalists who often openly deny any objective moral standard are postulating a system that we should intuitively know is false. This is a good time to offer a better and much more trustworthy authority - Jesus Christ. A man who came on the wings of hundreds of prophecies and who proved his divinity by rising from the dead (I Corinthians 15).

The atheist must see that Jesus Christ has made demands on his life. He has commanded every person to submit to his authority. I believe this is the leverage we need to show that everything in the world conforms to the worldview that Jesus taught. From universal morality, to the universal moral dilemma of mankind, to design in the universe, to the logical need of a first cause, it all makes sense when we start with Jesus and it all confirms exactly to what he has taught us is true about reality.

This is what I call a Practical (and evangelistic) Presuppositionalism. Thank you Francis Schaeffer.

(Photo by Brandon Robbins)

Have They Really Found Jesus' Tomb?

2007-03-05T11:55:00.000-06:00

Last night I watched the Discovery Channel special The Lost Tomb of Jesus. In the program, it is hypothesized that a tomb discovered in 1980 in Talpiot, Israel (near Jerusalem) held the bones of Jesus of Nazereth and his family, in particular, his wife Mary Magdalene and his son Jude, the Virgin Mary, and James, Jesus' brother. The clear and undisputed facts are that the tomb contained 10 ossuaries (bone boxes), one carrying the inscription "Jesus, son of Joseph," and others with the names "Mary," "Mariamne Mara," "Jude, son of Jesus,"and "Matthew." From these facts, it is (tentatively) concluded that this tomb is very likely the tomb of the Jesus worshipped by Christians for 2,000 years. The problems with this hypothesis are so numerous that it would take a book to explain them all. Below I will briefly mention a few of the more prominent problems. For those who want more, let me encourage you to take a look at the blogs of NT scholars Ben Witherington and Darrell Bock:

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/

http://dev.bible.org/bock/

The major problems, as I see it, are these:

1. The statistics. The maker of the documdrama hired a statistician who concluded that there was a 1 in 600 chance that the tomb was NOT that of Jesus of Nazareth. IOW, it is a high probability that this is Jesus' family tomb. But, this conclusion is based on some unwarranted assumptions. First, that the first "Mary" in the tomb was the "Jesus" in the tomb's mother. There is no evidence to indicate that. It could have been a sister, a cousin, a wife, etc. Second, there is no evidence that the second "Mary" (Mariamne Mara) was Jesus' wife--again, even given the DNA testing, it could have been a half-sister or a cousin or an aunt. So, the program is totally bogus when it asks how many Jesus's in Jerusalem would have had a father named Joseph, a mother named Mary, and a wife named Mary, and then concludes that it's 1 in 600 that this wasn't Jesus of Nazareth. What should have been asked instead was how many Jesus's in Jerusalem would have had a father named Joseph and two female relatives named Mary--and the answer is: a whole heck of a lot! Joseph, Jesus, and Mary were very common names in 1st-century Israel (e.g., 1 in 4 women were named Mary!). One statistician on Witherington's blog calculates that the actual odds that this IS Jesus' tomb are (at best) 1 in 400--IOW, highly unlikely! And if you throw in the fact that we have no evidence at all (outside this tomb) that the NT Jesus had a son or a close relative named Matthew, then the odds get even worse.

2. The Names. The program postulates that Mary Magdalene was also known as Mariamne (a dimunitive form of Mary), and they cite a second century Gnostic text, The Acts of Philip, as proof. There are two problems here. First, there is no evidence from the first century to confirm this view (Mary Magdalene is consistently referred to as "Mary" in the NT) and simply taking the Gnostic text's word for it is anachronistic. Second, the Mariamne in the Acts of Philip is described as the the sister of Philip and is nowhere identified as Mary Magdelene. Also, the show says that the term "Mara" on the same ossuary means "master", and thus shows that Mariamne (Mary) was a leader in the Christian Church and this supports the view that it was Mary Magdalene in that tomb. However, "Mara" is a well-known, shortened variant of "Martha." So, the ossuary inscription simply reads "Mary Martha" and indicates either that one woman had two names or that two women were buried in the same ossuary.

Also, it is important to point out that Jesus is nowhere called by his friends and followers in any documents we have "son of Joseph" (cf. Luke 3:21). The fact that this phrase occurs on the ossuary is a huge prima facie reason to deny that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. And when we add that two other names in the tomb (Jose and Matthew) are nowhere else associated with Jesus' family, the basis for that denial is even stronger.

Have they found the lost tomb of Jesus? I don't think so.

Why God Does Not Appear?

2006-11-09T12:39:00.000-06:00

Many atheists and agnostics mock Christians for believing in a "sky daddy" or "imaginary friend." They say that an outrageous claim (such as the existence of an invisible divine being) must be supported with incredible evidence in order to be believed. They often say they would believe if God would appear to them or write messages to them in the clouds.

Christians often sidestep this difficult question of why God remains invisible, maybe out of the embarrassment that might come from believing in an invisible ruler God. Some Christians apparently think it is just a mystery that must be accepted. But the Word of God makes it clear, God is not showing Himself for good reason. Consider the following three passages:

John 20:24
Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him, "We have seen the Lord."

So he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."

And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace to you!" Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing."

And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Here, Jesus (who is God) made it clear that not seeing and believing anyway is important to God. In other words, this is the way God has set up the system and He has a special purpose in setting it up this way.

I Peter 1:6-8
In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

Here it is very clear that our faith in what we are not allowed to see leads to the "praise" of Almighty God. God desires His own glory above all things. This is why He does appear before us or write in the sky "Jesus Saves." He wants us to believe without seeing. It is not a mystery, it is a fact, belief without sight brings a maximized glory to Almighty God. Thus Paul writes:

II Corinthians 5:5-7
Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight.

When Christians are moved to doubt God because they cannot see Him or when they are challenged from non-believers, it is best to turn to the Scriptures where God makes it clear why He has constructed a system that operates in this fashion - He is interested in making the most of Himself, and all His glory.

By the way, it is good to note, that God has manifested Himself several times throughout history, not the least of these was in the Person of Jesus Christ. Those who refuse to believe God, however, will not accept the eye-witness accounts of those who saw Him. What makes them think they will believe if God were to appear today? I don't think they would. Belief in Christ is a matter of the heart, not of the eyes.

What Must We Believe?

2006-08-31T17:01:00.000-05:00

At ARC we put a lot of emphasis not only on defending the truth, but also on knowing the truth. After all, how can you defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints unless you know what the faith is?

So, what is "the faith"? Christians, of course, differ on many doctrinal issues. Yet, there are certain core doctrines that lie at the heart of the Christian faith and on which all genuine Christians agree. We call these doctrines the "essential doctrines of the faith." These are the basic truths that define what it means to be a Christian as opposed to (say) a Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, etc.

What are the essential doctrines? For a description and biblical defense of the essential doctrines of the faith, check out my August 31 post at my personal blogsite:

http://cowanchronicles.blogspot.com/

ARC on Video!

2006-08-22T16:06:00.000-05:00

A TV ministry program called Church for Skeptics hosted by Dan Arsenault is now available online. Myself and other members of the Apologetics Resource Center staff participate in several episodes. Check it out at:

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=church+for+skeptics

Where Do We Live? An Analysis of American Culture in the 21st Century

2006-07-28T12:39:00.000-05:00

I have almost finished reading David F. Wells' book No Place for Truth for the first time. I realize that my shame level is enormous for having just now encountered this "stinging indictment of evangelicalism's theological corruption." One of my biggest sins, it seems, is being a good deal behind the curve. Nonetheless, God put this book in my hands in recent days and I would like to simply share some of my insights that flow out of my interaction with Wells. These are not critiques, but rather a summary finished off with some of my own passion about these matters.

First, it does us well to consider some of the marks of our Modern / Postmodern culture.

Temporary / Impermanent (Fad-ish)
Ours is a styrofoam society where everything is manufactured to later be cast into the garbage. Our clothing, our food, our dinnerware, even our homes and automobiles are not made to last. "Get the latest" is one of our biggest catch-phrases.

Superficial (Not Deep)
Education is not about learning in our society, but it is about using knowledge as a tool to have a successful career. Theology is laid aside and replaced with experience: “That really blessed me.”

Relativistic (Not Center, No Truth)
“That’s fine for you but not for me.” Tolerance for all beliefs is the chief virtue. The basic laws of logic are thrown to the wolves. The only truth is that there is no truth. Instead of thinking, people simple exist.

Revolt Against All Authority Except Self (Mirror Idolatry)
With Democracy (and I am thankful for the good parts of it) government authority is placed in the hands of the voters. Church authority has been incredibly marginalized. Parental authority is questioned at every turn. The only boss of me is me.

A Sense of Restlessness (In Search of Something More)
The heart is designed by God to find that which is stable, eternal, and which provides true satisfaction. The meaningfulness of life in this culture has in many ways been drained from our thinking and thus we move and flitter from activity to activity like numb and buzzed drones.

Focus on Self (Individualism)
The Reformation and the Enlightenment led people to see that they could think for themselves and need not follow authorities, superstitions, religions, or anything else. Freedom and liberty after all, is what America is built on. Meaning is thought to be found inside the self. “I need to find myself.” Technological advances (especially the TV) have provided society with a way of watching others reflect on their selves, supplying an enduring model for the rest of us to ponder our selves.

Conformity to the Crowd (Fit In)
There is an apparent discrepancy between Freedom and Equality / Individualism and Conformity, but in America both are highly valued. After all, the self looks to the crowd for a definition of what the self should be. It is in this that the majority truly rules! Whatever the crowd says to wear, the individual wears. Whatever the crowd says to watch (Nielsen ratings) the individual watches. However the crowd votes, that is the individual who is elected.

Competitive (The Apprentice)
The business world is called “Dog eat dog” for a reason. People are befriended only as a means of using them to climb to a higher rung on the self's career ladder. On TV, we watch Survivor, the Bachelor, American Idol, and the Apprentice (just to name a small sampling) and we see what it takes to be the King of the Hill. Because our culture worships self, to be envied by others is the highest form of self worship.

Entertainment-Oriented (Killing Time)
People in our culture seem to believe that leisure activity is the activity of a king. We kill ourselves five days a week so that we can be entertained on the weekends. So the goal of our flittering and running is to get a drink, a few laughs, and a show. I remember once saying at a James Taylor concert, "All these people and I have hired James Taylor (via our ticket purchases) to put on this show for us. Therefore, he is our servant." I did not know what I was saying at the time. How ironic that we worship our superstars, and we pay them to expose their talent so that we can gawk at them at the same time. But entertainment is much more pervasive: video games, Internet surfing, fantasy sports, and useless phone chatter. Even our news broadcasts must be witty, fast, and attention grabbing or people will quickly exercise their authority as an autonomous self and, using the remote control, change the channel to Wheel of Fortune.

Now, having thought about these marks of our culture, consider what is happening to various churches who believe that the best way to reach a sinful culture is to become like that culture. What about the Church that tries to "fit in?"

The Professionalization of Ministry
Dr. Wells shows clearly the awful tendency of pastors and other ministers to find respectability in this type of culture. (I would also recommend here John Piper's book on this topic, Brothers We Are Not Professionals.) This trend in ministry has happened, according to Wells, because the clergy were being marginalized as a result of Enlightenment and Modern thinking. Their respected and prominent positions in the community (literally as the center of the community) was diminishing at an alarming rate. Thus the modern minister changed his approach. Seminaries adopted new degree programs (such as the D.Min) in order to accommodate this changed approach. The preacher went from truth broker to everyone’s best friend (since he is unqualified to be a psychologist).

The Therapeutic Model of Ministry (Instead of Moral Model)
The needs of the people determine the direction of the ministry, not the truth of God’s Word. Sin is set aside as a reality, holiness is replaced with a desire for wholeness, and the goal of ministry is to feel good about yourself (like you feeling you get when you get back to the hotel from Disney World). In this way churches have truly become seeker sensitive instead of Kingdom announcing.

Finally, if the church is going to be something special and unique in this kind of culture, it must repent and become authentic. That is, it must be counter-culture, since in almost every way the culture is antithetical to the dictates of the Bible. This world does not need more institutions that promote self worship, but rather an institution that promotes a completely different way of looking at life, where God and His eternal glory are the center of all thinking. Here is what the church needs to do:

Seek Out That Which Is Permanent
The self is impermanent, but God is eternal. Start looking for things that last instead of buying into each passing fad. Pastors, stay at your church longer than 2 years. Families, quit moving to new cities for a few bucks more in salary. Value permanence as a reflection of the permanent nature of our immutable God.

Go Deeper / Learn Theology
Stop believing that inward feelings are the criteria for determining truth. Start asking your pastor to preach more doctrinal sermons that explain the character of God, the Person and work of Christ, the nature of true salvation, and like issues. To know God and be able to meditate on His character and being in worship is the GOAL OF LIFE. Theology is not a means to an end. It is the end! Quit reading Stephen King and start reading Jonathan Edwards.

Know Truth (The Center is God)
There is one truth for all people, for all times, in all places. Be confident when you assert, "The Hindus have it wrong." They do. So do the Muslims. Almighty God, as He has graciously revealed Himself in the Bible, is truth and the source from which all true things flow. All knowledge must begin and end in God.

Submit to Proper Authorities (Elders, Government, Husband, Parents, Boss)
This is a big counter-culture move! Even if they are wrong, even if they are incompetent, even if you know the issues better than they do, it is the act of submission itself that is virtuous. This does not mean be mindlessly controlled by others, that is not what submission is. But that is another topic!

Be At Peace and Be Satisfied
If you want to stand out in this culture, quit running and relax. This is not to say be lazy! Laziness is altogether different. You still have tasks to accomplish. But this busy-bee anxiety that plagues our modern world stinks of death. Slow down! The only way to successfully do this is to anchor deeply into Jesus Christ. To know Him is to know that you are eternally secure. No situation, even a terminal illness, can shake you if you are fixed upon the Rock. Our unbelieving culture has no rock, thus it flitters. The Church should be at rest and satisfied in our Lord.

Focus on Others
Not just as a way of drawing attention to yourself, but as an end in itself. Help someone who needs money. Give away one of your extra cars to a family in need. House a missionary. Leave your high sanctuary pulpit and preach at a downtown mission to the homeless. Take a mission trip to Africa and carefully hold AIDS infected children while doctors place needed vaccines in their deteriorating bodies. For a moment, September 11 seemed to wake the Church up, that the world is desperate for true love (eternal love), but since then, we quickly went back to our self-worship. A focus on the eternal God (aided by theological musings) will lead to a focus on the needs of others.

Be Sacrificial
I worked for awhile at a bank here in Birmingham and I saw first hand how brutal the corporate world can be. Instead of competing, go counter-cultural and sacrifice yourself so others can be promoted over you! Sure, you will not make as much money, a thought that is anathema to this culture. You will even be called a wimp! People will say, "He helped others, why doesn't he save himself!" But the impact of going counter-cultural can be enormous.

Education-Oriented
Stop entertaining yourself to death! Throw out the Nintendo and turn off the tube. Read books with your children instead of attaching them to electronic pacifiers. (I am not saying do away completely with all these media, for they do have some helpful purposes, but our flaw is not in using these media too much in the helpful way, but in using them too much in harmful ways). Instead of entertainment, focus on education. Entertainment has some value, but we were not created to be amused ultimately. We were created to know. To know God. This involves using your mind in order to study theology. Do not go to church to get a high from the wonderful singers and be entertained by the pastor / comedian / self-help guru. Go to church in order to seek out knowledge of the living and true God. That is truly counter-culture!

Internet Apologist?

2006-07-19T11:28:00.000-05:00

It is easy to suggest things, but not follow through with actions. So that is what I am going to do! I suggest that the Church establish a ministry to people who surf the Internet.

The person would be paid a salary and have board oversight and be required to surf the Internet 8 hours a day, focusing especially on forums, chat rooms, and blogs, and be a solid Christian voice there. He / she would not be a columnist but rather an evangelist. The goal would be to carry on conversations with people who talk online and to point them to the living water of Jesus Christ (John 4). As far as I know, this is not currently being done (correct me if I am wrong).

BENEFITS
People are turning to the Internet for answers. Because it is a protected environment, where people do not know each other really, where people cannot be rejected face-to-face, it is the place to go for seekers concerned about life and its meaning. Just scan the blogs on blogger.com or the thousands of myspace.com accounts and you will see clearly that the Internet is the new community of seekers, doubters, and loners who want friends (maybe?).

To have an Internet apologist / evangelist would be to provide a solid Christian voice to people at the place where they seem to be looking most for answers.

PROBLEMS
One objection to putting finances into this type of thing would be that many Christians already do Internet ministry. There are plenty of websites where non-believers, doubters, and seekers can go to read or hear audio messages about the truth of Christianity. Why should we pay someone to do it? Well, good objection! However, the position of Internet apologist would be unique. It would not be a central Christian website (though it might involve that kind of thing as a home base). Rather it would be a person being proactive in bringing the Gospel message to other websites, blogs, etc. It would be an outreach as opposed to a sitting-still kind of website. I mean, you can have an article available called, "Proofs for God's existence," and you might even get some hits, but it is unlikely that most seekers are going to end up there. Remember Jesus sends us to others (Matt. 28:19-20).

Another problem would be that when we think of evangelism, face-to-face meetings seems to be the best method. True enough. Certainly, personal contact is the best, simply because a physical connection is made when you look people in the eye. But, the Internet evangelist would be playing an important role in the process since so many people are going to the Internet to fill the void of loneliness they feel in their lives. In a broken, fragmented, postmodern age, where the individual reigns supreme, people are left to look inward on themselves. When they grow bored with that, they reach out. However, many people do not want to risk actual personal face-to-face relationships, often out of fear of rejection. So the Internet has become a place of pseudo-community. It is not the best place for relationships and Christians should not be interested in living our lives separate from each other, only to speak through our monitors. However, since that is the place people are going, looking for answers and opening up their lives, then it makes sense that we need pastors there! This is a unique people group with unique needs.

Another problem: If the people are converted to Christ, they will almost certainly not go to a church local to the Internet apologist or to a church that supports the Internet apologist. They will go to a church local to them, which could be anywhere. This means there will be little visible fruit. It might be hard to support a ministry where that is the reality. But again, what is our interest in doing this ministry? Is it to fill up our own little quivers for the purpose of showing off to others how successful we are, or is it to bring the Kingdom of God to bear upon the Earth. Those who support this ministry would have to understand that the investment is worldwide, and the fruit is real, even if it is not local. Of course, this ministry will never and could never replace local ministry and local churches. It would be an evangelistic ministry design to see people converted to Christ and supporting a local church where they live. It would, in a very real sense, make the world a better place.

Well, I am posting this idea as nothing more than an idea. Again, it is easy to lay out a theory, but difficult indeed to follow through with it. I also have to admit that I would not want to be the Internet apologist. Looking at a screen 8 hours a day would send me to the asylum! But perhaps God has laid this kind of ministry idea on someone else who might be called for just such a time as this. Whaddaya think?

A Few Thoughts on Superman Returns

2006-07-07T11:50:00.000-05:00

The revival of Superman brings a renewed need of examining the greatest superhero pop culture has ever produced, especially from a biblical point of view. Superman Returns is a fantastic production. Even the flying looks real! (I guess I can suspend disbelief with the best of them). The portrayals of old characters by new actors and actresses were successful in all but one case, that of Superman himself. It seems as though he was trying to be Christopher Reeve instead of Clark Kent / Superman. Routh does state that this was his intent and for good reason, but this is all really a matter of opinion and really beside the point. Let’s move on to more important issues.

Christians should, of course be concerned about the gay lifestyle chosen by director Bryan Singer and the possible motives he might have in creating this movie. Every creative venture a person engages in is going to, in some way, communicate his or her worldview.

Also, there is some debate over the controversial line, “Truth, justice...all that stuff,” spoken by Perry White as he coached his Daily Planet staff to write stories about the arrival of Superman. To me this seems like no big deal. They are simply making Superman out to be more global, not just American. From a Christian point of view, this makes sense. We are not the only country in the world.

The real questions however, especially for biblical Christians, relate to the role of Superman as a messianic figure. The correlations between Superman and Christ are many and well documented elsewhere and elsewhere and elsewhere. Some Christians will argue that these parallels are good and can be used to show the basic human need to have a “savior” as Superman is called in the movie. This might be an impetus for people to look to Christ as a true Savior.

On the other hand, does Kal-El end up functioning as a distraction from the one true God? Instead of pointing people to Jesus Christ, is he simply creating wrong imagines in the minds of people about what a savior is? After all, Superman is morally inadequate, as seen in his attempt to entice Lois even after he knows she is in a new relationship with another man. Does Superman actually lower our expectations of our concept of savior for humanity?

No doubt, different people will view Superman in different ways, most of them subconsciously. Some will look beyond this modern, man-made, mythical type to see the greatest being in existence, Jesus Christ. Some will be turned away from Christ as they lower their expectation of the idea of savior for humanity. I suggest that we think through these concepts in depth. Superman will probably return again and again in the years ahead.

Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs - A Review

2006-06-28T13:46:00.000-05:00

In light of ARC's up and coming Areopagus Journal on the New Age, here is a book review (which will also be published in the journal) on John Ankerberg and John Weldon's helpful Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs (Harvest House Publishers, 1996; 670 Pages).

Ankerberg and Weldon are both known for their competent proficiency on a wide variety of Christian apologetic issues (see www.johnankerberg.org, for example) and the New Age Movement is no exception. This encyclopedia receives high marks generally speaking because it is comprehensive enough to cover a vast amount of relevant information regarding New Age beliefs and practices, and yet it is clear and straightforward enough to be used by just about anybody. Here is a self-description: “The material in this book is popularly written and should be considered as introductory and intermediate in nature.” The research is presented in a friendly and accessible way.

The helpful introduction written by Charles Strohmer, defines and describes the foundational “New Age way of seeing life” identified by the author as “foreign.” Here several key terms are put in the spotlight: monism, pantheism, Gnosticism, polytheism, animism, and energy. When exploring any issue within the New Age Movement, it would be helpful to refer back to this section and review these terms, for these beliefs are the concrete bottom of the New Age structure and explain why adherents engage in many strange practices. Unless their most basic beliefs are understood, their practices will not make much sense either, especially to the Western mind.

The authors balance well between New Age organizations, personalities, beliefs, and practices. For example, there is an entire section dealing with Scientology, an organization, but there is also a section called “New Age Education,” that focuses on the individual leaders and their methods for integrating their beliefs and practices into public schools.

A further strength of this broad guide is its interaction with actual practitioners of the movement. It is not simply a book of mud-throwing. The authors truly seek to understand the movement from the standpoint of those who are or have been active in it.

One other unique and helpful feature of this work is the “Info at a Glance” segments found at the beginning of each new section. These contain brief, one-paragraph descriptions of each organization, belief, and practice, as well as information on the founder if there is one. There is also a scientific evaluation given as well, which sheds fresh light on each issue from the world of scientific discovery. However, the scientific synopsis is sometimes the simple label “discredited” without any supporting documentation.

The authors must be commended for their recognition of the spiritual dimension of the New Age movement. Apologists can often make the mistake of believing intellectual persuasion alone is sufficient for showing a person an error. However, Ankerberg and Weldon show clearly that often satanic and demonic forces are at work behind the New Age movement. In the section dealing with the New Age concept of “enlightenment” they write:

“It is our conviction that the experience of enlightenment isn’t what proponents claim it to be: an exalted and divine state of consciousness permitting experiential awareness of the pantheistic reality of all existence. We think it is just the opposite. Far from being a spiritual evolutionary leap for mankind, we think enlightenment is a rather unprogressive encounter with the demonic, which ultimately leads to possession.” (p. 242)

This type of language, looking beyond the outward, physical movement itself and to the spiritual reality behind it, is found throughout the encyclopedia. In fact, Ankerberg and Weldon have been criticized (perhaps unfairly) for having too strong a focus on this aspect of the New Age movement, finding a “demon under every rock”.

The following is an overview of the many of the topics in the book: A Course in Miracles / Attitudinal Therapy, Altered States of Consciousness, Angel Contact, Astrology, Channeling, Crystal Work, Divination Practices and Occult “Games,” Dowsing and Water Dowsing, Dream Work, Eastern Gurus, Enlightenment, New Age Seminars (Like EST), Hypnosis, Mantras, Martial Arts, Meditation, Muscle Testing, New Age Education, New Age medicine, Physics, Scientology, Shamanism, Silva Mind Control, Visualization, and Yoga.

If you are considering the purchase of this Encyclopedia for your own library, remember that it was printed in 1996 and is now out of print. Because of the ever-changing nature of the various New Age movements, leaders, and practices, constant updates need to be made to a work such as this. For example, there is nothing in this work on the new uprising of Kabballah, enthusiastically embraced by many Hollywood and pop stars, such as Madonna. In spite of this shortcoming, Ankerberg and Weldon have provided a unique, solid, and concise grasp of where things were a decade ago and certainly this is prerequisite knowledge to comprehending the world of the New Age in our day. The funny thing about history is how it keeps repeating itself.

Pastors especially should have a copy around the office. Eventually you will be confronted with some aspect of the New Age movement and this resource can give you quick reference when you need it.

A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman on the Historical Reliability of the Resurrection

2006-06-05T14:29:00.000-05:00

This debate took place on March 28 at College of the Holy Cross. Dr. Craig has made a special request you might can help with.

"Since Ehrman is not permitting the publication of this debate, could you help to make this address known, perhaps providing such a link at any websites you are involved with?

Thanks,
Bill"

Gene Edward Veith on the Busted Blockbuster

2006-06-02T11:54:00.000-05:00

Celebrated author and columnist, Gene Edward Veith explores the unsuspected fact that The Da Vinci Code turned out to be a rotten tomato. Check out his article and take seriously his last line.

"Meanwhile, Christians trying to convey a far better message should keep in mind
that aesthetics really do matter."

In a day when so many churches and ministries just try to get by packaging the glorious Gospel in unworthy wrappings, we should remember this quote and make a change.

A Key Error in the New Perspective on Paul

2006-05-30T12:33:00.000-05:00

The following helpful and informative article was written by ARC staff member Brandon Robbins concerning the NPP, especially in its view of the conditional and unconditional covenants of God. This article will also be published in the latest Areopagus Journal on "Three Apologists Every Christian Should Know."

More often than not, the answer to a theological disagreement comes down to a proper interpretation of scripture. The following article is focused on some of the issues involved in interpreting the concept of “covenant” in Scripture. This question of “covenant” has taken center stage in many theological discussions today. Within reformed circles for example there is a group that calls itself the “Federal Vision.” This group (comprised of mostly North American Presbyterians) focuses on the objective nature of the covenant and the covenant people of God. Seeking to free us from our self-involved individualism, Federal Vision concentrates on the corporate nature of salvation. Some within this group also have loose connections to a broader movement known as the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). NPP goes well outside North American Presbyterians to include academic institutions around the globe. Those who follow NPP claim that the church has misunderstood much of Paul since the time of Luther and the other reformers. At its heart, this controversy questions our traditional understanding of Saint Paul and salvation’s covenantal roots.

My purpose here is to explore the biblical concept of covenant. I will defend one theological point that, if true, overthrows many of the erroneous ideas we find in NPP and some aspects of Federal Vision.

Two Types of Covenant Structures
Michael Horton in recently claimed that the covenants we find in scripture can be understood as falling into one of “Two kinds of arrangements: conditional covenants that impose obligations and unconditional covenants that announce a divine promise.”[1] First, let us look at an example of an unconditional covenant promise:

“When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates…” Gen. 15:17-18

Here God makes an unconditional covenant promise of land to Abram. The interesting point in this passage is that God places all obligations upon himself for Abram obtaining the land. In fact, we see in this passage an image of God as a smoking pot and flaming torch passing through the sacrificed halves of animals representing that God himself will meet the obligation of this covenant. In this passage, God literally states, “If you Abram don’t receive the land, let me (the LORD Himself) be split in half (put to death) like these animals.” This passage is a picture of Christ (by His death) securing our salvation apart from any effort on the part of the individual. According to Horton, this type of covenant promise is a picture of a royal grant.[2] A royal grant is a promise the realization of which is secured by the giver (a king) of the promise. Not only is the covenant with Abraham unconditional but it is also eternal. In Genesis 17:7 we read: “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.” (My emphasize)This royal grant is given as an eternal promise and God alone will meet the conditions.

But, is this the only structure or type of covenant we find God making with people in scripture? No. Second, Horton also demonstrates what is called a conditional covenant, as seen in the following passage:

“If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.” Deu. 30:16

Here God is calling the people of Israel to obey his commandments if they are to be blessed in the land. The implication is that if they do not obey, they will not possess the land and will not be blessed within it. God provides a covenant here, but only for a time to the people of Israel on the condition of obedience. But they did not obey; they failed to meet the conditions of that covenant. Does that mean that every individual failed to obtain eternal personal salvation? No, because that covenant was never meant to bring individuals to salvation. The covenant of law given to Moses at Sinai was to be a guardian or tutor leading people to the promise that had come to Abraham earlier.[3]

NPP on Covenant Salvation
So, is our hope today conditional or unconditional? To put it another way, is our hope for ultimate blessing based upon the promise and the promise Giver or on our own personal faithfulness to the obligations imposed? What does Abram have to do with Moses? How do we understand the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant? Forgoing the numerous theological considerations involved here, I want to focus on one central issue. If we assume that there are two kinds of covenantal arrangements, we simply need to answer this question: Is the covenantal pattern of eternal salvation: conditional or unconditional?

The NPP believes that “salvation” has always been understood on a conditional model. The following is how NPP interprets salvation under the covenant given to Moses:

“(1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God’s promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in (7) maintenance or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God’s mercy belong to the group which will be saved. An important interpretation of the first and last point is that election and ultimately salvation are considered to be by God’s mercy rather than human achievement.”[4]

This pattern shown above is known as Covenantal Nomism, which clearly follows a conditional understanding of one’s “right standing” before God. In the 8th part above you see that mercy only comes to those who are obedient to the covenant. This is believed by NPP followers to be how Paul understands salvation before Christ. What is even more disconcerting is that it is also close to the pattern of salvation they believe for the Christian now. Let us look at N.T. Wright’s definition of justification:

“Those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith are then declared by God to be his people, his elect, and ‘the circumcision.’ ‘The Jews’, ‘the Israel of God’. They are given the status dikaios, ‘righteous’, ‘within the covenant.’”[5]

“The whole point about ‘justification by faith’ is that it is something which happens in the present time (Rom. 3:26) as a proper anticipation of the eventual judgment which will be announced, on the basis of the whole life led, in the future (Rom. 2:1-16).”[6]

For Wright and other New Paul theologians, the Christian life is played out much like the life of the Jews of ancient Israel. Being brought out of the bondage of sin (Egypt) we are now obligated to follow the law. If we are faithful covenant members throughout our lives then we will be declared righteous. Yes, they claim that this entire enterprise is of grace. They believe this because the law is only given after we have been brought out of bondage. Yet, it is still based on performance or proper participation in the covenant that is the guarantee of salvation. A person is righteous as long as he/she remains a faithful member of the community of God. Justification is already proclaimed only in the sense that it is an anticipation of a final declaration after one has been faithful throughout his life.

What is the Error?
At the end of the day we have an error in interpreting the concept of covenant. What NPP, Federal Vision, Theonomist and others of the same ilk fail to appreciate and consider is the other kind of covenantal structure we find in scripture. And they attempt to force a conditional structure upon the whole biblical narrative. Paul tells us of the limited nature of the law of Moses: “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian” (Gal. 3:23-25). The law as a guardian was to lead us to knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20) and also guide us back to the earlier promise given to Abraham (Gal. 3; Rom. 4). It can be said that by their obedience Israel could have remained in the land and received blessing, but not eternal salvation. Our security in our own personal salvation rests not in our continuing obedience (salvation has never been obtain in that way), but the obedience of our Savior. Christ walked in the midst of the pieces on behalf of those who put their faith and trust in Him. Christ fulfilled the eternal promises given to Abraham and put no condition on them! “It is by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is a gift from God” (Eph. 2:8). The author of Hebrews sums it up well:

“But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises” (Heb. 8:6).

[1] Horton, Michael, God of Promise, p. 36
[2] Ibid., p. 41
[3] Rom. 3:20 “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” Also see Romans 4:12-16; Gal. 3:23-26.

[4] Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 422
[5] Wright, N.T., Paul, p. 122
[6] Ibid, p. 57

The Da Vinci Code Gets C+

2006-05-23T14:35:00.000-05:00

The opening weekend has come...and gone.

The Da Vinci Code ranked first (not surprisingly) for the weekend with $77,073,388 in ticket sales (13th best opening weekend ever in the USA and 2nd best ever worldwide). Interestingly, in spite of the high sales, professional critics and viewers alike are giving the movie low marks. Some say its is boring, some say slow, some say too talky.

Who really cares?

The movie / story / plot is a major side issue. The problem is not that the movie was so popular or that it was deemed forgettable as a movie. The problem has never had anything to do with the part of the story that is obvious fiction. The problem is and will remain the theory about Jesus' life that underlies the story. A theory that author Dan Brown has professed to personally believe to be true.

Christians must be able to see the distinction between the story (Robert Langdon and company) and the theory. How people grade the movie does not change the theory. Keep in mind, this is not the only fairytale (with no historical substantiation) that people are believing about Jesus and the early church. There are many dreamers out there who are promoting made-up views, disguised as scholarly work. Just consider the productions of the Jesus Seminar.

The Da Vinci Code has come and it is now on the way out. Much like buying a new car, the second you drive it off the lot, it begins to dimish greatly in value. So it is with movies and books. However, the impact of teaching theories that have no historical grounding and no truth within will continue to grind upon the minds of those blinded by the god of this age. It will come in waves and in different forms.

Will you be able to discern truth from error, carefully examining and weighing evidence or will you be swept away in the tide of error that leads to destruction?

Craig Branch's Veritas on Logic

2006-05-17T15:22:00.000-05:00

The following article is by ARC director Craig Branch describing the content of the latest Areopagus Journal on logic (March - April 2006).

There is a scene early on in C.S. Lewis’s novel The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in which the character Lucy has just returned from her first journey into Narnia and has told her siblings about this magical place.

Peter and Susan come to their guardian, Professor Kirke, concerned about Lucy. The Professor asks, “What were you doing in the Wardrobe?” Peter responds, “You wouldn’t believe us if we told you.” The Professor responds, “Try me.” As they skeptically relate Lucy’s story, the Professor challenges their assumption that Lucy is making it up. Susan asks, “Are you saying that we should believe her story?” He answers, “Why not?” Susan tells him, “Well, logically it’s impossible!” “Logic!” said the Professor, “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn’t tell lies and it’s obvious she is not mad. For the moment then, and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.”

Professor Kirke is encouraging his wards to truly apply the principles of logic to the case at hand—in which case, they would see that it is not illogical to believe Lucy’s tale. C.S. Lewis uses a similar logical “trilemma” in Mere Christianity to argue for the deity of Christ – Jesus, he argued, was either Lord, liar, or lunatic.

This issue of Areopagus Journal is about logic. When our staff decided to cover this topic, my apologist’s cynicism gave rise to anxiety. Will our readers even bother to read it? Or worse, will people not renew their subscriptions? Won’t people perceive it to be too dry, too academic, or even irrelevant? But continue to read and I believe you will perceive and understand the vital relevance of this topic.

Who Cares? Let’s begin with a few definitions of logic.

1. Logic may be defined as the science that evaluates arguments. [An Argument] is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe a conclusion. (1)

2. Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning. . . .The distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning is the central problem with which logic deals. (2)

3. Logic is the study of the methods by which the conclusion is proved beyond all doubt. Given the truth of the premises, the conclusion must be true. In technical language, logic is the science of necessary inference. From such and such premises the conclusion necessarily follows. (3)

Why study logic? The use of and the need for logic is unavoidable and indispensable. One cannot not use it. Logic is a fundamental and necessary component of epistemology (the study of knowing how to know anything truly). Thoughts or conclusions usually result in choices and actions. Ideas have consequences for individuals, for relationships, for society and culture. Everyone needs to use basic logical laws to reason clearly and communicate coherently. If logic is disregarded or even disdained, then the ability to discern truth is lost, and the distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, just and unjust, will also disappear. The rejection of logic means the end of morality. If one cannot distinguish any of the above categories then there is no basis for morality!

This fact is becoming more and more clear in both Eastern and Western cultures. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and the various “New Age” cults make the truth claim (which in itself is a contradiction) that reality is non-dualistic—i.e. there is no absolute truth, no ultimate right or wrong, evil or good. Likewise, the West’s drift into postmodernism posits the similar idea that our finitude makes it impossible to say for sure what is true.

Without knowledge and use of logic one could not point out the emptiness and irrationality of statements like, “All truths are half-truths,” “There are no absolute truths,” “All truth’s are relative,” or “To claim you are right is intolerant and bigoted.” These statements are as self-refuting as statements about “Square circles,” or sentences like “I can’t speak or write a word of English,” “I only accept statements that are five words or less and no more,” and “All generalizations are false.”

The knowledge of sound logic is necessary for the Christian in two ways. First, we are commanded to love God with all our hearts, souls, minds and strength (Mark 12:30). So, the study of logic is not optional because we are called and expected to seek understanding of God’s revealed truth and live in obedience to that truth.

The second necessity for knowledge and the use of logic is to better engage unbelief, both in unregenerate persons and in the cultural systems that are antithetical to God’s truth. So, logic is a component of apologetics.

Even though God has ordained His elect to be saved, He has also ordained the means by which they are saved. Regeneration and conversion happen at a point in time, but preceding that point there is almost always a process. No one comes to the Father except the Holy Spirit draws him (John 6:44), but that drawing is a process. The means that God has ordained are various: Christians living out their faith as a “sweet aroma” (2 Cor. 2:5, Acts 2:44-48), Christians speaking forth the gospel (2 Cor. 5:17-21; Matt. 28:18-20), and Christians reasoning, persuading, and using argumentation in correcting wrong beliefs (2 Tim. 2:23-26; 2 Cor. 5:11; Acts 18:, 19; 19:8; 28:23-24; 17:17-34).

Because we live in a world full of influences that shape the way we think, reason, and act, we need to take much more seriously the need to develop the disciplines to be good Christian thinkers so that we can be an effective part of the processes God has ordained to bring His elect to saving faith. As J.P. Moreland observes, Our society has replaced heroes with celebrities, the quest for a well-formed character with the search for a flat stomach, substance and depth with image and personality. In the political process, the make up man is more important than the speech writer, and we approach the voting booth, not on the basis of a well-developed philosophy of what the state should be, but with a heart full of images, emotions, and slogans all packed into 30-second soundbites. (4)

In order to help the reader see the practical relevance of a study of logic, let me discuss a specific theological and apologetic issue that a proper understanding of logic can illuminate. I refer to the doctrine of the trinity. Christians believe that the self revelation of the triune nature of God is essential to worshipping the one true God as opposed to the myriad of false, man-made gods.

But most cults, false religions, and skeptics deny and attack our belief in the triune nature of God. Groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals and Muslims often display an inadequate understanding of this doctrine. And some of them resort to the twisting of Scripture to undermine the biblical teaching on the trinity. In addition to a thorough understanding of what the Bible teaches about God, we need to be prepared to apply sound principles of logical reasoning to respond to the cultist’s and skeptic’s misuse of logic in attempting to disprove the trinity.

God in His Word reveals that there is only one true God and many false gods. He reveals that His Being is uniquely triune by nature. The classic formulation of this doctrine is that God is one being consisting of three distinct Persons, each person sharing one divine substance (homoousios).

At this point come the attacks. “So you’re saying that the Father is one Person and is one in substance. Then you say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each distinct Persons. Then they must be each distinct substances—three different gods. Or perhaps you mean that each Person is part of God, so that 1/3+1/3+1/3 =1. Or maybe you are saying 1+1+1= 1—which is irrational. For example John, David, and Bill are each human persons. John is not David, David is not Bill, and John is not Bill, and they are not one human being, but three. So, how can God be three Persons, yet one God? It’s illogical.”

Another attempt to (mis)characterize the trinity as irrational goes as follows:

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
5. There is one and only one God.

According to numbers 1,2,3,5 the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one thing. But according to #4, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate things. Unfortunately, Christians often use faulty analogies to try to explain the triune God. For example, you have probably heard the following: “God is like an egg. You have the shell, the albumen (white part), and the yoke, yet just one egg.” But that is a false analogy. You end up with tripartitism (1/3+1/3+1/3=1).

Or another false analogy is: “I am one person, but I am a father, a son, and a brother all at the same time.” This analogy illustrates an early heresy in the Church called modalistic Monarchianism in which God is one Person who appears in three different roles. So is the charge of skeptics and cultists a valid one? Is the revelation of the trinity illogical and irrational, violating the law of non-contradiction (“A” cannot be “non-A” at the same time and in the same way)?

Before I begin to demonstrate the logical coherency of the revelation of the triune God, it is important to note a couple of things. It is one thing to defend the revelatory belief against charges of logical incoherence and another thing to prove it is true. It is still another thing to explain thoroughly or completely how, in this case, God is to be understood. We cannot prove through logic alone that the doctrine of the trinity is true. Nor can we as finite, fallen human beings have a complete understanding of God’s triune nature—there will always be an element of mystery here. Nonetheless, we can know enough, using good logic, to know that the doctrine of the trinity is not illogical or absurd.

God reveals that He is one being. And He has revealed Himself to consist of three distinct Persons (having self-consciousness and other communicable attributes) in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is not three beings (or “things”) but one being. Yet, despite appearances, these truths are not contradictory. We may see this by use of a simple illustration. Consider an individual human being—call him John. How many beings is John? One being, of course. How many persons is John? He is one person. Now consider a chair. How many beings is a chair? One being, of course. (A “being” is defined as something having existence.) But, how many persons is the chair? Zero. The chair is not a person at all. So, if a being can be one person and less than one person at the same time, there is no logical contradiction in saying that a being could be more than one person at the same time. The same argument can be made for three persons existing as one substance. (5)

Contradictions in the Bible? There are many texts in the Bible that critics say are contradictory. The following list provides a few examples of some of these “problem” texts:

Jesus asks the Father not to lead us into temptation (Matt. 6:13) yet God tempts no one (Jas 1:13).
Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Matt.7:21), yet whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Rom. 10:13).
God is all powerful (omnipotent), He can do anything, yet God cannot sin.
Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30), yet the Father is greater than Jesus (John 14:28).
Jesus was God incarnate (John 1:1,14), yet Jesus was a man approved by God (Acts 2:22).

All of these alleged contradictions arise because the Bible critic has engaged either in faulty interpretation or faulty reasoning (either bad hermeneutics or bad logic). This is another area where a study of logic can be helpful.

Sometimes, as with the doctrine of the trinity, skeptics seek to undermine Christian beliefs by formulating arguments designed to show our beliefs to be false or unreasonable. Here are some further examples:

The Bible is written by human authors.
Humans err.
Therefore, the Bible has errors.

God is eternal and immortal and therefore cannot die.
Jesus died.
Therefore, Jesus is not God.

Jesus was a human being.
All humans sin.
Therefore, Jesus sinned.

If God is all powerful, He would be able to prevent or eliminate evil.
If God were all good, He would want to prevent or eliminate evil.
So if God were both all good and all powerful, there would be no evil.
Evil exists.
Therefore, there is no all powerful or all good God.

Again, confronted with these challenges, it is incumbent upon the Christian to learn how to think clearly and correctly. ARC has published earlier issues of Areopagus Journal that are foundational to this calling. One is an issue on the inspiration, inerrancy and authority of the Bible (“The Breath of God”—January 2002). Another is on epistemology, the discipline of how and why we know truth (“How Do We Know?”—April 2002). The difficult problem of evil and suffering is addressed as well (“Why, Lord?”—May-June 2005). We also have an issue on biblical canonicity (“Do We Have the Right Books?”—November-December 2005). This was followed by our last issue (“Biblical Interpretation”—January-February 2006) which deals with the science and art of proper interpretation of the Bible. The knowledge conveyed in these journals underscore our need expressed by the Psalmist, “Give me understanding, that I may keep your law and observe it with my whole heart” (Ps. 119:34), and the application of Jesus’ prayer for us, “Father sanctify them in the truth, for Your word is truth” (Jn. 17:17).

This issue of Areopagus Journal will build on the concepts introduced in past journals by giving you the tools to use good logic (think and reason well) and to point out the faulty logic and reasoning of unbelief. The first article is by W. Jay Wood, Professor of Philosophy at Wheaton College, entitled, “Virtue & Knowledge.” In this article, Jay explains the connection between the acquisition of knowledge (and avoidance of error) and the development of good habits of thinking known as intellectual virtues.

ARC’s Steve Cowan writes, “Minding Your P’s and Q’s: A Primer on Logic for Christians.” In this article, Steve lays out the basic principles of logic and the most common forms of rational argumentation. He also points out some common fallacies that should be avoided.

Picking up on the theme of fallacies, Roy Massie, a graduate student at Birmingham Theological Seminary, contributes the article, “Don’t Be Deceived: An Informal Introduction to Informal Fallacies.” Roy explains and illustrates several of the most common misuses of human language and rhetoric designed to lead people astray.

NOTES1. Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 4th ed., (Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, 1991), 1.2. Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, 7th ed., (New York: MacMillan, 1986), 3, 5.3. Gordon H. Clark, Logic, 2nd ed. (Jefferson MD: Trinity Foundation, 1985), 1.4. J.P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1997), 21. I would add to Moreland’s list “illogical rhetoric.”5. For a thorough Scriptural exposition on the revelation of the Triune God, ask us for our free information packet on the Trinity (click here to request online, or 866-403-0102), and see the article by Ron Rhodes, “Defending the Deity of Christ and the Trinity against the Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Areopagus Journal 5:4 (July-August 2005): 23-28.

Dealing with The Da Vinci Code

2006-05-09T14:00:00.000-05:00

The interest level in The Da Vinci code seems to be at a high peak. In preparation for the May 19 release of the movie, there is a tsunami of books, articles, videos, and other forms of media both for and against the theory underlying the book. The purpose of this post is to make a couple of unique (I hope) points concerning this event.

First, the hope of all believers in Jesus Christ should not be only to defend our faith and the Word of God, but also to see Dan Brown come to Christ. I am afraid that we sometimes allow our anger to be the driving fuel as we lash out against error. And yes, Dan Brown has made major historical errors, attempting to pass them off as fact. This clear disregard for truth does get under our skin, certainly it gets under mine, especially when unthinking people buy into his theory. Quite frankly, it feels like stepping on a nail and feeling the metal slowly creep up into the flesh, muscle, and bone of the foot.

Nonetheless, our driving conviction should not be to prove Dan Brown wrong or anybody who follows him. We should rather be praying that Brown be saved. Perhaps his encounters with the Word of God (though his motivation is to attack) would be used of the Spirit to reveal the living Christ to Him. Perhaps the Lord Jesus will show Brown that "it is hard for you to kick against the goads" (Acts 26:14).

Second, I want to simply point out the weak nature of the attacks against the Bible and historic Christianity in The Da Vinci Code. To some, it may seem that Brown's attacks are so sophisticated and complex that the average Christian cannot deal with them. This is not so. You do not have to be a trained historian to know that you need evidence before you make an assertion. If, for example, you say that Jesus was married, then you need to have something to back that up. Brown has nothing. He might say, "Oh, but what about The Last Supper." Sorry, Mr. Brown, reading hidden codes out of a centuries old work of art doesn't count - it is too ambiguous. He might say, "What about the Gospel of Philip?" Sorry, Mr. Brown, it was written nearly a century after Jesus' life. Whoever wrote that work was part of a twisted cult group and was using the person of Jesus to support his own religious claims.

You might be asking, "What should I say if I get into a conversation with someone about The Da Vinci Code?" It is simple really. Just make it abundantly clear that there is not a shred of historical evidence for this fantasy-land theory. The factual claims that Brown makes are just as fictional as the fiction itself.

Dan Brown Video

2006-04-24T13:44:00.000-05:00

Dan Brown, controversial author of The Da Vinci Code, made a rare public appearance in New Hampshire. This event, and excerpts from the speech were given special time on the Today Show. At the end of the speech, Brown quoted a priest as having said:

"Christian theology has survived the writings of Galileo, and the writings of Darwin, surely it will survive the writings of some novelist from New Hampshire."

Now here is a statement that makes a lot of sense! The Church has nothing to fear as far as The Da Vinci Code is concerned. Do we need to provide a response to the attacks? You bet. But we have nothing to fear.

Historical Christian theology is under attack, today as always. But those who are called of the Lord, whose eyes are opened to the truth, they will understand the divine gift and preservation of Scripture, regardless of the assaults presented against it in the name of "science." This so-called "science" turns out to be the biggest game of speculation that can be imagined. It gets nowhere near the truth, but I admit, it makes for a good novel.

Francis Schaeffer Speaks to the Problem of Ecology

2006-04-17T13:54:00.000-05:00

The following review of Francis Schaeffer's book Pollution and the Death of Man will be published in an upcoming Areopagus Journal called "Three Scholars Every Christian Should Know." The journal issue will focus on the lives and teachings of C.S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga, and Francis Schaeffer. At only $25 per year, Areopagus Journal is a key way you can absorb important apologetic information for the enrichment of your Christian life and it is a wonderful way to support the Apologetics Resource Center at the same time. Subscribe Today!

Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology
By Francis Schaeffer

When the man Francis Schaeffer is thought about, his great books that detail how true biblical Christianity answers the problem of man usually also come to mind. The God Who is There, Escape From Reason, He is There and He is Not Silent, and later on, How Should We Then Live are some of his dominant and most influential writings. But tucked away in an obscure corner of any complete Schaeffer library is his thinking on ecology, a topic most Christians rather enjoying ignoring, perhaps because we have a taste for beef and chicken, and we find little time for recycling or protecting endangered species. In fact, environmentalism is often associated with left wing liberal types and organizations such as PETA, thus to protect the environment, oddly enough, has a non-Christian flavor to it in our modern day.

Schaeffer, in his wisdom, begs to differ. In this short treatise, he offers the only lasting solution to the current ecological crisis, namely, a solid stance on the Christian worldview. He points out in the first chapter, however, that not all agree that this is so. He refers to an article written by Lynn White Jr., who emphatically declares that the problem is Christianity itself, with its belief that man has “dominion” over the earth, and thus deduces that he can treat it any old way that he pleases; that is, he has the right to “despoil nature.” Of course, this is a terrible interpretation of the dominion mandate given in the first chapters of Genesis, and Schaeffer goes on to show White’s error.

A major part of Pollution and the Death of Man is spent demonstrating that other worldviews are insufficient in providing an intellectual base for protecting the environment. Chapter 2 is a lengthy presentation revealing the inadequacies of pantheism to provide the needed foundation for keeping the planet clean. Schaeffer summarizes the problem:

“What I am saying is that a pantheistic answer is not just a theoretically weak answer, but it is also a weak answer in practice. A man who begins to take a pantheistic view of nature has no answer for the fact that nature has two faces: it has a benevolent face, but it may also be an enemy. The pantheist views nature as normal. There is no place for abnormality in nature, in this view…If we accept this romantic and non-Christian mysticism, the difficulty is that we have no solution for the fact that nature is often not benevolent.”

The Christian, on the other hand, has a sufficient base, the authority of the Word of God, in order to see both aspects of nature, both its benevolent and brutal sides. For example, the pantheist has no ground for seeing death or plague as evil. It must be treated as all nature is treated. However, the Christian rightly sees both sides.

After detailing a few other inadequate answers to the ecology problem, Schaeffer, in chapter 4, begins detailing the Christian view, which not surprisingly finds its basis in the act of God to create. Creation is not equal with God nor is it an extension of God, but “created things have an existence in themselves. They are really there.” As such nature has value in itself since God made it. Schaeffer deduces therefore, that God “treats his creation with integrity: each thing in its own order, each thing the way He made it.”

This view leads to a “substantial healing” among created things, as Schaeffer details in chapter 5. Because God created all things and treats them with integrity, so should we. This is not pantheism, but rather a way of honoring the creator. Thus, as a human, I recognize that I am more valuable than an ant, but the ant is a fellow creature, both of us made by the same God. I have the right to kill him, but only under certain conditions. Schaeffer explains, “We have the right to rid our houses of ants; but what we have no right to do is to forget to honor the ant as God made it, out in the place where God made the ant to be. When we meet the ant on the sidewalk, we step over him.”

Schaeffer builds this Christian view of ecology not in spite of the dominion mandate given to man, but squarely upon it. He points out that man is fallen and has used his dominion to exploit and destroy rather than to rule and build. No wonder many think that Christians are to blame for the crisis! But certainly of all people, those who are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, should attempt to possess dominion over the earth in the way that God originally intended, treating each created object, living and non-living, with integrity, in its own order, each thing the way God made it.

Pollution and the Death of Man offers powerful insight into how the Christian should approach modern environmental issues. My critique of the book is it's date. At the current crossroads, more Christians must step up to the plate in order to communicate clearly the truth Schaeffer so eloquently conveys in this book, namely, that the Christian worldview is the only lasting answer to modern man’s ecological crisis.

The Gospel of Judas: More Gnostic Nonsense

2006-04-12T10:18:00.000-05:00

Last Sunday night I watched the National Geographic Special on “The Gospel of Judas.” As usual with other recent programs of this sort that deal with the topic of the historical Jesus, I came away somewhat frustrated, perhaps even angry—not because the program attacked my personal beliefs or challenged the truth of Christianity, but because (once again) shoddy historical research and politically motivated revisionist history were being passed on to a gullible, biblically illiterate public as indisputable fact.

The Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic gospel similar in many respects to other “lost” gospels that have become the subject of popular discussion in recent years due to the popularity of the best-seller, The Da Vinci Code—works such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. As The Gospel of Judas has it, Judas was not the villain that orthodox Christians have portrayed for 2000 years. Rather, he was Jesus’ most trusted disciple, and the only one who truly understood his mission. According to the story, Jesus actually gave Judas the task of “betraying” him so that Jesus could die on the cross and be freed from his physical body (Gnostics believe physical stuff to be evil). So, Jesus’ betrayal and death were apparently not evil acts in themselves, but spiritual necessities designed to release Jesus from a physical prison. Rather than an evil traitor, Judas was actually a hero and the recipient of the secret knowledge (gnosis) required for true salvation.

Now why is this a big deal? Why would we think this Gnostic gospel anything more than a harmless historical curiosity? It’s because the producers of the National Geographic special, inspired by the revisionist history of Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman (the two scholars given the bulk of the airtime on the show), are pushing the idea that the Gospel of Judas presents us with a picture of Jesus and of early Christianity that is just as authentic, and perhaps more authentic, than the portrait of Jesus and the church that we find in the four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Ehrman and Pagels have made a name for themselves in recent years by pushing the thesis that in early Christianity there was no “orthodoxy,” no single standard of belief about the identity and mission of Jesus. Instead, the early church manifested a great deal of doctrinal diversity with many different, even conflicting, views of Jesus. What is their proof for this idea?—the so-called Gnostic Gospels, many of which were contained in the Nag Hammadi library, a collection of Gnostic works discovered in Egypt in 1945. So, according to Pagels and Ehrman (and the National Geographic Society), there existed in the early church about 30 gospels, not just four, and these gospels show that early Christianity was a mosh-posh of theological traditions and it wasn’t until the third and fourth centuries that the camp we call “orthodox Christianity” one supremacy through political oppression of opposing version of Christianity.

It ought to be enough to respond to this theory with one word: hogwash! For that is exactly what it is. Unfortunately, many people (even church-going people) are being misled by the likes of Pagels and Ehrman. So, a more substantial response is called for. There is not time or space here to be thorough, but let me offer the following remarks in rebuttal:

1. The Gnostic Gospels cannot support the Pagels-Ehrman thesis about early church diversity for several reasons. First, because the Gnostic gospels (including the Gospel of Judas) did not exist in the early church. The manuscripts of the Nag Hammadi library were transcribed between A.D. 350-400. And there is no evidence whatsoever that any of these books were written before A.D. 150. Before that time, the Gnostic gospels were unknown—which is a strong indication that they were not written until after that time. Concerning the Gospel of Judas, we have a reference to it in the works of the church father Irenaeus in the year 180. So, we can know that this gospel existed at that time. However, there is no reason to think that it existed prior to that time. Second, we know that that all four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written in the first century, during the apostolic era. What is more, some time before Irenaeus, the canonical gospels became universally accepted throughout the church as authoritative and divinely inspired works. For instance, the Muratorian Canon (c. 170) lists the four gospels along with 16 other New Testament books as homologoumena (books accepted as authoritative by all the church). Though containing many differences, these four gospels nevertheless tell the same basic story about Jesus and identify him as fully human and fully divine (and they paint Judas as a traitorous villain). No other gospels as close to the life of Jesus as these four existed in the early church, least of all the Gnostic gospels.

2. There is ample evidence from early Christian documents that there was a single, orthodox Christian faith from the very beginning. First Corinthians was written by Paul about A.D. 55. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, Paul speaks of the gospel message he “received” and “passed on” to others. That message included the account of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (the latter is especially important since Gnostics do not believe in a bodily resurrection). The words of this text are written in a highly formulaic style indicative of a creedal statement. So, what Paul is saying is that he had earlier “received” this creed and had passed it on to the Corinthians. When did Paul receive this doctrinal tradition? No doubt, he received it on his visit to Jerusalem as recorded in Galatians 1:18-19). This means (as most critical scholars acknowledge) that this creed dates no later than A.D. 40, within ten years of Jesus’ death. This same Paul also says in Galatians (his earliest epistle, written about A.D. 49) that there is only one gospel message, and any teacher who deviates from that message is accursed—a clear indication of a standard of orthodoxy. Elsewhere, Paul states that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:5). Throughout the New Testament, in books known to be early first century documents, there are numerous exhortations to hold on to sound doctrine and warnings against false doctrine (Matt. 24:4-14; Col. 2:8-9, 16-23; 2 Tim. 4:1-5; Heb. 13:9; 2 Pet. 2; 1 John 2:18-23; 4:2-3; Jude). All of this is a clear indication that there was a discernable Christian orthodoxy in the early, first-century church, long before the advent of Gnosticism and the writing of the Gnostic gospels.

3. Another point is worth mentioning. The earliest Christian canon was the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament. These Scriptures taught that the world (and material things) was created by God and was inherently good. This fact explains very clearly why the Gnostic gospels could not possible have been taken seriously by early Christians and could not possibly have been just one, competing “version” of Christianity. The Gnostics rejected the goodness of the created order and they rejected the authority of the Old Testament, believing that the God of the Old Testament was not really God, but an evil spirit who rebelled against the true God. The presence and authority of the Old Testament in the early church provides the reductio ad absurdum to the Pagels-Ehrman thesis that Gnosticism was an authentic expression of early Christianity.

Is the Bridge Out? The Dangers of Agnosticism

2006-04-11T15:31:00.000-05:00

Agnosticism is much more humble than atheism, since it admits that it does not have enough information or a wide enough scope of information to state bluntly that God does not exist. Having said that, agnosticism does face two dangers.

First, it fails to consider the consequences of eternity. Agnosticism is open to the possibility that people survive death in some form. Of course it is the heart of the position to either say the afterlife is unknowable or that the individual agnostic does not know, however, agnosticism is also by definition, open to the possibility.

If I were on a passenger train and a man whispered to me, "Have you heard? The bridge is out 50 miles ahead. This train is going to crash." But another passenger overhead and said, "Wrong! That is a mere rumor. The bridge is not out and we are going to be fine." Well, I must admit that I would be an official agnostic, afterall I have no way of knowing which person is right. But I do know this, I would be doing everything in my power to find out the truth. I would ask other passengers, listen to the news on the radio, even go to the cabin and ask the engineers. I would not simply sit back and be content with the answer, "I don't know." That is the danger of agnosticism. It is open to the possibility of eternal consequences, but more often than not, seems apathetic. Of all people who should be seeking diligently for the truth, it should be agnostics, since they are open to the possibility of God's existence and eternal life / death.

The second danger of agnosticism is its failure to examine all the evidence in proper context and in an unbiased fashion. Realizing that it is hard, if not impossible, to be totally unbiased, nonetheless an effort must be made to let the evidence speak for itself. Just one example of this is the Resurrection of Christ. Many agnostics dismiss this event simply because they have not seen a person rise from the dead but often they fail to consider the Resurrection of Christ within a theistic worldview. They should say to themselves, "If God exists could I expect him to raise someone from the dead even if I never see it?" The answer is yes. Most agnostics instead say, "Since I have never seen a person raised from the dead, therefore it must not happen or I have no way to verify that it did happen." But if the existence of God is granted for the sake of argument, then it should not be difficult at all to believe in the possibility of the Resurrection.

THEN, if you believe in the possibility of the Resurrection, all I ask is that you take a long hard look at objective testimony and data. Here are several articles to help you think through this issue. Craig, Craig2, and Habermas.

Bottom line: agnosticism is better than atheism, but still very dangerous.

God Is After His Own Glory and that Is Why He Remains Invisible

2006-03-28T15:43:00.000-06:00

God created the world for his own glory (read Edwards and Piper). Many people who hold an agnostic position on the existence of God insist that they would believe if God would appear to them personally, or speak audibly from heaven, or write in the clouds "Jesus Saves," or rain fire down from heaven. They say that God is powerful enough to perform these signs and if he expects us to believe in him, then he should perform the signs.

But God does all things for his own glory and that, biblically speaking, is why he remains invisible. For example, we read of the faith of Moses...

"By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible" (Hebrews 11:27).

It was Moses ability to live as though he saw God that pleased God, that is, brought glory to God. This seems right when we add verse 6.

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

So God remains invisible. He does this so that we have to believe and trust in him - after all, if he were constantly "proving" himself with various signs, there would be no need for faith (and that would mean less glory for God, something he is not willing to do). It is the dependence of his people that lifts him up, exalts his name, and brings to him a maximized amount of fame.

But of course the Christian faith is far from being an irrational, unreasonable, or blind faith. We believe in the solid and consistent testimony of a trustworthy man, namely Jesus Christ. He told us these things are true, so we trust him. Everybody trusts some authority.

Consider this piece of history from Jesus' life:

When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death. "Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe." The royal official said, "Sir, come down before my child dies." Jesus replied, "You may go. Your son will live." The man took Jesus at his word and departed (John 4:47-50).

Yes, Jesus did perform the sign and seems glad to do so, but he makes it clear that people should believe his words, not just the signs. Consider this passage.

Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:38-40).

To those who say they would believe if God showed them signs, I challenge you to understand that God does all things for his maximized glory (to which he is entitled as God), thus he remains invisible. Our duty is to trust the powerful words of Jesus Christ who testifies of the reality of God's existence, power, and nature and who also made it clear that we could trust all the Bible.

Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God" (Matthew 22:9).

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life (John 5:39-40).

Arguments Used by Agnostics to Support Agnosticism

2006-03-27T12:50:00.000-06:00

Robert Ingersoll wrote a treatise in 1896 called "Why I Am Agnostic." The arguments he brings forward are very similar to arguments agnostics use today. Here is a summary and response to a few of these.

The Product of Culture Argument

Premise one: Most people inherit their opinions and beliefs from their parents and their culture. People born in Iraq tend to be Muslims and people born in America tend to be Christians.

Premise two: If religion is so important, one would expect to see people adopt their religious views based on solid research rather than mere heritage.

Conclusion: No religious perspective is correct.

This is a very common agnostic argument, which Ingersoll brings forward immediately in his treatise. But there are some major holes in this argument. For example, premise one is indeed a reality, but why? The reason is because so few people take the time to examine their beliefs, sad but true. However, we must be careful to note that many people do take the time to examine their beliefs and very often change what they believe in the process.

To prove this point, consider the agnostic himself. Very many agnostics were born into religious families, but as they grew older they rejected the beliefs of their parents. So it is clear that not everyone blindly accepts the beliefs they inherit. Many people change their beliefs. Muslims convert and become Christians. Christians convert and become Buddhists. And so on. This type of conversion happens all over the earth, not just in one place.

Just because the large majority of people are content to stay as their parents and culture are (a sign of laziness or oppression) does not mean that one view is correct and another incorrect. Each philosophy of life or religious perspective must be evaluated on its own terms, not based on who believes it or who does not. This argument is illogical, for the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

The Christians are Manipulative and Hypocritical Argument

Premise one: Religious people have committed many atrocious acts and have manipulated and often forced people to accepting their views.

Premise two: Religious people would not do this if their religion was actually true.

Conclusion: Their religion is not true.

You can also read this argument postulated here and here. Bertrand Russell says, "Cruel persecutions have been commoner in Christendom than anywhere else. What appears to justify persecution is dogmatic belief."

Of course this argument holds no water at all for a belief system cannot be evaluated based upon the actions of those who claim to hold it. This is true for a number of reasons. From a Christian perspective, it is true because we believe that though we are saved by grace we are not yet perfect. Thus Christians still do mean and stupid things. The bumper sticker says it all - "Christians are not perfect, just forgiven."

Also, we believe that there are many people who claim to be Christians and enjoy wearing the label, but who are in fact not rightly related to Christ by faith and thus not truly a believer. These people then give the Christian faith a bad name with their actions. But does that change the truthfulness or falsity of the Christian faith itself? No it doesn't. Yes, Christians, real ones and counterfeits, have been hypocritical and will continue to be, but if you are going to attempt to determine whether Christianity is true (or any philosophy of life) then the belief system itself must be evaluated on its own terms.

I will admit that this argument has some validity. After all, one must ask the question, "Has this belief system worked for others in the past?" Those who do adhere to a belief system are, in a sense, commercials for that belief system. For example, I have no desire to join Islam and blow myself up as a suicide bomber! But what I want to make clear is that not every Muslim believes in blowing oneself up. If I am contemplating the truthfulness or falsity of Islamic belief, I should evaluate the belief system itself, on its own terms, regardless of the actions of adherents.

So the argument falls apart even if it has some usefulness and validity.

The God Cannot Be That Way Argument

Premise one: The God of the Bible is cruel, violent, and egotistical.

Premise two: As far as I understand what God might be like, he cannot be that way.

Conclusion: The God of the Bible is not the actual God, if an actual God exists.

Many agnostics go down this road, including Ingersoll. We read in Genesis 6-9, for example, of a God who seems to have no problem killing almost every living thing on the planet. Most people dream of God as the eternally good One, who is filled with innocent love for all creatures - a very different picture.

The major problem with this argument is that it assumes that humans are allowed to construct God as we want him, given that he exists. But if God has indeed revealed himself in the Bible (or in some other way), then humans are to accept him as he has revealed himself not as we think he should be. If you are disapointed with President Bush's stance on the war in Iraq, for example, you cannot simply say, "Presidents do not do that." Sure, you might have in mind an ideal "president," but then we all must face the reality of who the president actually is.

Premise two is weak, therefore, because there are no grounds of authority upon which to construct an idea of what God is like. It is just a personal feeling.

God is Egotistical
What many agnostics misunderstand is the basic interpretive grid for understanding the God of the Bible: namely, God does all things for his own glory. The charge that he is egotistical might be correct, so long as egotistical does not imply sin. God is most certainly God-centered. He loves himself more than anything or anybody else. "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3). "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols" (Isaiah 42:8). Please be aware that these are two of hundreds of verses like these. All of them clearly show that God loves God most of all.

Thus, what seems to be cruel and violent to us as humans (flooding the earth) is a way that God is maximizing his own glory. This axiom: God does all things for his own glory, is the only way to understand the God of the Bible as a loving and good God.

Of course, many agnostics admit this, but say that they could never worship such a self-centered and egotistical God. But is being self-centered wrong for God? We know that it is wrong for us. Why? Because we are not the center of the universe! There are other people who are equal with us all around us and we are the same basic value as every other person. But would it be vanity for God to see himself as the greatest treasure there is, if indeed he is the greatest treasure there is?? If he did not see and worship himself as supreme, it is clear, he'd be a liar and an idolater. He'd be denying the reality of what he himself actually is.

Read "God Created us for His Glory" and "Is God for Us or for Himself," both by John Piper for a greater understanding of these ideas.

At any rate this third agnostic argument fails as well, since we cannot base our understand of God merely on what we think he should be like.

Agnostic, Agnostic, or Agnostic?

2006-03-25T08:02:00.000-06:00

People become agnostic for many different reasons. Read this previous post from a few days ago. 1) Because they are intellectually convinced that there is no evidence for God's existence or that he is unknowable. 2) Because they are too lazy or too busy to examine possible evidence. 3) Because they are caught in a cycle of immoral behavior allowed under an agnostic moral code. 4) Because they fear being labeled intolerant if they settle on a theistic viewpoint.

There is a fifth reason I have observed. Sometimes people choose agnosticism because they hear Christians (or other religious people) saying stupid things or they see them doing stupid things. I'll admit, I was a little bit offended by the movie Saved, that mocks Christian teenagers. But that might have been the world's way of saying, "If this is the way you all act, we do not want to be a part of the group." Very often, we must admit, we do things that we think please God, but that are not commanded in Scripture. (Crusades would be a big example, but we have plenty of modern examples too). So often people are agnostic because they refuse the social stigma of being a believer.

It also seems clear that #2 above is a very common reason for agnosticism. Many folks have looked for God, found evidence lacking and have then ceased looking for him, or have gotten busy with other things. It isn't that they disregard the possibility of God's existence, they are just tired of looking for him.

To these folks I would throw out a thought. Is it possible that if the "evidence" were a snake it would have bitten you? Is it possible the evidence that God might exist is right in front of you? It is possible that some have so heavily bought into naturalistic presuppositions, where everything that exists must have a natural explanation, that even the most obvious hints of a divine being are missed or explained away.

Just the fact that there is life is a big hint for me. Sure, naturalism postulates abiogenesis and sure, that is a possible explanation for life (though as I see it, this is a hard package to buy from any perspective). But it is weak at best and certainly just as unprovable as theism.

Not only this, but it also seems wise to construct a theory giving God the benefit of the doubt (afterall, we are dealing with agnostics not atheists). For example, I might reason this way: If God did create the universe, I might deduce certain things about him. Namely, he is eternal (assuming cause and effect relationships), he is powerful, he apparently has a purpose, and so on. Given these things I might also assume that he would want to communicate to mankind. This seems to be a logical inference. If he created me and I am a communicating being, then it is certainly possible that he is a communicating being as well.

Thus, it makes sense from an agnostic perspective to examine possible communications from a divine being, assuming the divine being exists. In other words, if a person needs to be scientific about this, and assumes that it is possible that God might exist, then a good place to start would be to examine all persons who have ever claimed to be God or to be a prophet who speaks for God.

This task sounds daunting, but really its not. There are not all that many, or least not all that many categories of people who have claimed such things. For example, one need not examine every single god in the Greek and Roman pantheons. They can either be accepted or rejected as a group.

If you are agnostic or know an agnostic, here is the challenge. Don't be too lazy or too busy to do the research. It is possible that God exists. In that case it is of utmost importance that we spend our lives looking for him, afterall, we need to know to what degree we are accountable to him and / or what he wants from us, given that he exists.

The Church's Engagement of Culture in the Next Generation

2006-03-24T10:22:00.000-06:00

I (Steve Cowan) just delivered a paper at a regional meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society in which I "prophecied" two near-future developments in American culture: (1) the demise of postmodernism, and (2) the demise of Darwinism. The former will fade from the cultural scene, I think, because relativisitic thinking simply cannot persist in any culture for very long. Every society has to be built on a shared moral vision, and postmodernism, by definition, cannot provide such a vision. Darwinism will soon go the way of the Dodo because it is, as many have pointed out, a theory in crisis. As more and more anomalies challenge the evolutionary paradigm, and as ID theory becomes more refined and culturally respectable, Darwinism will be seen for the psuedo-science it is.

I do not wish to debate on this blog (for now) whether or not these predictions will come true. I would like our readers to assume, for the sake of argument, that they will in fact take place. My question, then, is: what should the church (and individual Christians) do to impact our culture for Christ's kingdom in the wake of these important developments? And what should we do to prepare for them?

Keep in mind that what I am envisioning is this: (1) a culture in which some form of theism seems most plausible to most people--a culture "haunted" by an intelligent designer; and (2) as culture looking desperately for some social/political paradigm to provide a stable foundation for society in order to avoid the anarchy that postmodern relativism would entail. Comments welcome.

Why Do People Become Agnostic?

2006-03-23T14:29:00.000-06:00

An agnostic is a person who claims either that knowledge of God is unknowable (strong agnosticism) or that evidence for God's existence has not personally been discovered (weak agnosticism). Furthermore, an agnostic might also be more of a relativist and simply state that God might exist for some but not for others (will call this subjectivistic agnosticism).

Why do people become agnostic? In this post, I'd like to answer that question in four possible ways. Of course an agnostic might hold to his or her position for a combination of these reasons or another reason not listed here, but I imagine this list will cover most of them.

1) Intellectual reasons. Many agnostics have honestly pursued the question of the existence of God and have found the evidence lacking. They see naturalistic explanations as to the origin of life, order and design in the universe, and the existence of morals as providing sufficient explanation for their existence. To them, God seems illogical. They often cannot understand why a good, loving, and powerful God would allow evil in the world.

2) Pragmatic reasons. Some agnostics have not really pursued the question of God's existence. They have not done the research needed to examine the evidence or to look within their own souls to see if there is a need there for God. They are either too lazy or too apathetic. Often they say, "If God does exist, it would not make any perceptible difference to my life."

3) Moral reasons. Some agnostics maintain their view because they are caught in a cycle of immoral behavior that is allowable under their current moral code, based on an agnostic view of the universe. Even though they might concede that evidence for God's existence is strong, they recognize that if they should be persuaded that God exists they would be accountable for their actions and might have to cease the immoral behavior.

4) Tolerance reasons. Finally, some agnostics withhold judgment as to the existence of God for fear that they will be labeled as intolerant if a viewpoint is taken. There have been so many religious conflicts throughout history, and understandably, there is often a desire to avoid these.

It should be clear, there are probably no two agnostics who are exactly alike. Similarly, I have not met two Christians exactly alike either. If you are agnostic, I challenge you to think deeply about why you have chosen this position. Likewise, Christians should be challenged to determine why we hold to our beliefs.